Recent technological developments have produced a number of new and improved electrically powered kitchen appliances. However, although the variety and number of appliances available is increasing dramatically, the building industry is severly limiting the space, particularly counter and cabinet space, available for kitchen appliances. To alleviate this problem, numerous attempts have been made to design multi-purpose kitchen appliances that will perform as separate single function units. These attempts have followed two principal approaches, both of which have achieved only limited commercial success due to various inadequacies associated with such units.
A first approach involves the production of a single stationary appliance which performs multiple functions through interchangeable attachments driven by a single motor. Such a unit is typified by the U.S. Pat. No. 3,224,743, to Freedman et al which discloses an appliance designed to function primarily as a beater/mixer, but is provided with a socket to which various attachments can be connected for operation by a power take-off shaft. The appliance of this patent also allows for retraction of the beater arm and pivotal rotation of the appliance for disappearing flush storage in a counter top.
As a practical matter, kitchen appliance users do not like interchangeable attachments, both because they require too much time and effort to use and becuase the attachments themselves occupy storage space and may be easily lost or damaged. Moreover, by powering multiple attachments from a single motor through a single drive shaft, the user loses the benefit of all attachments if the single motor malfunctions. In some cases, such as is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,071,789 to Ernster et al, multi-purpose kitchen appliances are made with a single motor used to drive multiple, variable speed power shafts. A further problem is encountered in this situation since construction and repair of the appliance become unnecessarily complex and costly. Other examples of kitchen appliances in this first category are disclosed in the U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,422,343 to Falkenbach et al and 3,951,351 to Ernster et al.
Manufacturers using a second approach have offered consumers portable kitchen appliances. In U.S. Pat. No. 3,126,627, a portable appliance is disclosed that can be held in the hand while being used for opening cans, beating and whipping, and can be supported while performing other functions, such as sharpening knives. In addition to the possible loss or damage of attachments and the storage requirements associated therewith, somewhat different problems are associated with such portable units. Firstly, the unit itself must be stored somewhere in the kitchen, thereby further aggravating the general space problem which this type of unit was designed, in part, to alleviate. Secondly, in order to make these units portable, lighter and less powerful motors are used which, in turn, make these appliances significantly less capable of satisfactorily performing difficult common tasks, such as kneading dough, than the more powerful fixed units discussed above. Finally, such units frequently offer the consumer functions which are less in demand and less useful than fixed uses, a factor of importance when space is at a premium. For example, the portable units disclosed in the patents to Walter et al (U.S. Pat. No. 3,791,597) and DuBois et al (U.S. Pat. No. 3,821,902) provide, respectively, for an ice crusher and a reciprocating knife, neither of which would normally considered kitchen appliances in high demand.
Other solutions to the organizational and space problems discussed above have been proposed by manufacturers who have offered consumers either separate storage cabinets designed to compactly accommodate a large number of differnt appliances and attachments, as disclosed in the patent to Rogers, Sr. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,334,724), or kitchen appliances which occupy neither counter nor cabinet storage space but are, instead, physically mounted under a cabinet in space which might otherwise normally be wasted. Examples of such appliances are disclosed in the patents to Karlen et al (U.S. Pat. No. 3,232,212) and Smith et al (U.S. Pat. No. 3,002,652). The obvious problem with the former solution is that, although a separate cabinet may be compact and prevent loss or damage to utensils, it still occupies scarce space. Meanwhile, the latter solution, although representing definite progress toward a fundamental resolution of the basic space problem, has, to date, only been used for relatively low power or single function units, primarily because mounting structures have been too unstable to rigidly support heavier mechanisms.
Thus, it has remained an elusive goal of the kitchen appliance industry to provide consumers with a low cost, simple, multipurpose appliance which is sturdy and powerful enough to perform functions requiring heavier duty motors and yet occupies no counter and minimal cabinet storage space.